diadoc_map

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful trait that this is a navigation/orientation call and that it can be invoked with zero arguments to get a global view, which goes beyond the annotation data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the two invocation modes, then the routing advice — efficient ordering with minimal waste. The parentheticals and quoted asides are slightly loose but do not obscure the signal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and the description covers purpose, invocation modes, and the parameter. For a simple one-param navigation tool this is nearly complete; only sibling-relative routing guidance is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it explains the empty default returns the whole map, and gives concrete entity values ('reviews', stocks/prices/orders) plus the effect of passing one. Only a full enumeration or naming rule for valid entity strings is missing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific function: an overview map of the API's business entities and the go-to methods for each, with a distinct behavior for the no-arg vs. entity-scoped case. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like diadoc_list_sections or diadoc_search_methods, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear usage context — 'Use this before guessing — it orients you fast' establishes this as a precede-everything orientation step. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer diadoc_search_methods or diadoc_describe_method instead), so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.